1609010 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by two applicants, citizens of Malaysia, against the delegate's decision not to grant them protection visas. The principal applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Malaysia due to outstanding debts, while the secondary applicant relied on these claims. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), either on refugee or complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding their indebtedness to loan sharks, alleged threats and violence, and the reasons for their prolonged stay in Malaysia and subsequent departure for Australia. Central to the determination was whether the applicants had established a real risk of significant harm upon return to Malaysia, considering the provided country information and the applicants' evidence. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' conduct in remaining unlawfully in Australia after their temporary visas expired and their explanations for not seeking alternative visa arrangements.

Dr Colin Huntly, the Member, found the applicants' evidence to be vague, undetailed, and illogical, leading to considerable doubt regarding the principal applicant's account of his financial situation and interactions with loan sharks. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the principal applicant's claims about hiding from loan sharks for 15 months, his marriage, and obtaining a passport in his hometown, which contradicted country information regarding passport applications. The Tribunal also found it illogical that the loan sharks would not have pursued the debt for such an extended period. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept the claims of indebtedness, threats, harm, or police corruption. The Tribunal concluded that there was only a remote or far-fetched chance of harm upon return to Malaysia, and therefore, no real chance of significant harm.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.